Young Master de Piolenc, Thank you considerably for your concern over my blood pressure (see below). In all actuality, however, eyebrows are generally raised and approving nods given upon any instance of examination. Perhaps it's the oatmeal and exercise.
(However, if your bottomless pocket thesaurus of biomedical "facts" and studies has at least one counter argument for either, then I must surely abandon both regimens and qualify them as "junk science" hence forth.) Following your train of thought, that "Junk science is junk science if it ignores contrary - and readily available - facts," it would be appreciated if you would submit your sources of scientific study that substantiate your claim that low dose radiation is a myth and refute the extensive studies of the best minds in the field. All studies extant, to the knowledge of everyone in this office, have acknowledged that virtually every track of ionized radiation that passes through a cell nucleus (where mutation occurs) carries the potential to damage the nucleus and often does in a manner that is irreparable or repaired wrong (read "mutation"). The exacting of damage to any nucleus does not depend upon the strength of radiation, whether it be from a low or high dose exposure, but simply that an electron path or track passes through the nucleus. The frequency or number of tracks passing through any nucleus over time increases the odds of irreparable damage or mutation, and exposures should be limited as best as possible. In the same breath, any cell nucleus can win the "damage" or "mutation" lottery on the very first strike of an electron track. Therefore, it is an absolute that cell damaging and or mutagenic (read "cancerous") events can take place at all levels of radiation exposure, no matter if the source is natural or man induced and no matter the level. There is no such creature as a "fractional" electron, therefore no possibility of a "fractional" ionization track. Electrons, therefore their travel paths, are whole units and reduction of radiation exposure does not somehow make the consequence of each strike on a cell nucleus somehow fractionally catalytic, as many "low-dose" proponents claim. What you refer to as "safe exposure" or supposed "safe limits of low dose radiation," Master de Piolenc, is actually what others have determined to be "acceptable exposure(s)." Perhaps you would care to explain what gives you or any others the right to subject human populations to higher levels of exposure than we must necessarily face during our living process, all the while mis-labeling the risk as "safe?" Further, perhaps you would care to explain what gives you or any others the right to subject human populations to the more devastating events posed by higher levels of radiation released via inevitable mechanical failures and human error? Increased exposure levels or opportunity for receiving increased exposure is not "acceptable." As for your accusation that Doctors Gofman, Morgan, and apparently numerous others who are in agreement with them, are nothing more than "...senile and guilt-ridden Nobel laureates...," I strongly encourage you to state your claim directly. Doctor John W. Gofman, M.D., Ph.D, is Professor Emeritus of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California (Berkeley). You can contact the department for the number or I can provide it to you. I hope that your insight and research in the field will prove beneficial to his own. Should you care to research some of the pertinent works of this "senile and guilt-ridden" gentleman prior to contacting him, many can be accessed through the Livermore National Laboratory, where he was at one time the Associate Director. Todd Swearingen Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Post Script: Yes you are absolutely correct when you declare that "76 million Frenchmen CAN be wrong." ........................ > Whew! Watch that blood pressure, and try to stick to facts rather than > invective. > > Junk science is junk science if it ignores contrary - and readily > available - facts, no matter how many senile and guilt-ridden Nobel > laureates endorse it. Nature doesn't recognize authority - only facts. > > 76 million Frenchmen CAN be wrong. Truth will out. > > Marc de Piolenc ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Small business owners... Tell us what you think! http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
